Appeal No. 2007-0692
Application No. 10/729,973
The Examiner contends that Panduit’s cable tie mount comprises top
surfaces which are “fully capable of engaging a tongue,” meeting the
claimed requirement of a “tongue-engaging plate.” (Answer 5.) Appellant
contends that Panduit does not disclose a structure that can be utilized to
support and stabilize a tongue, the function required by the tongue-engaging
plate (Br. 9-10).
The issue in this appeal is whether Panduit describes a device which
comprises a tongue-engaging plate as required by claim 1, anticipating the
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). This issue turns on the proper interpretation
of the phrase “tongue-engaging plate” which is recited in claim 1.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
In comparing a claim to the prior art, the first step is to interpret the
meaning of the words in the claim. This is essential because it is the claim
language which determines a claim’s proper scope. In this case, the dispute
between the Examiner and the Appellant rests on the proper interpretation of
“tongue-engaging plate” as recited in claim 1.
During patent examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation read in light of the specification as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256,
73 USPQ2d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Using this principle as a guide, we
turn to the claim interpretation issue before us.
The claimed invention is drawn to a “tongue stabilizer for a
laryngoscope blade.” It comprises a “tongue-engaging plate.” We
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013